Hitler, Stalin, Obama, Hillary Clinton. All extremely left wing, radical despots bent on full government control.

You are following an American tradition, you'll be glad to know. One of the first NSA operations documents from the 50s outlined how they were going to focus on aligning the military with corporations in order to build an enormous defense machine to counteract the threat they perceived from the USSR. Part of the plan was a propaganda campaign to paint any group from the Left, ie. labor, socialists, progressives, liberals, etc. with communism and to create legislation to enhance corporate capitalism at the expense of any other possible economic forms, which they thought might endanger military power. This idea, of course, linked up neatly with the Red Scare of the times. This was the first document that stated the idea that capitalism should be inexorably intertwined with democracy in the peoples' minds, and anything that wasn't capitalism should be attacked as anti-democratic. So, good work.

You are following an American tradition, you'll be glad to know. One of the first NSA operations documents from the 50s outlined how they were going to focus on aligning the military with corporations in order to build an enormous defense machine to counteract the threat they perceived from the USSR. Part of the plan was a propaganda campaign to paint any group from the Left, ie. labor, socialists, progressives, liberals, etc. with communism and to create legislation to enhance corporate capitalism at the expense of any other possible economic forms, which they thought might endanger military power. This idea, of course, linked up neatly with the Red Scare of the times. This was the first document that stated the idea that capitalism should be inexorably intertwined with democracy in the peoples' minds, and anything that wasn't capitalism should be attacked as anti-democratic. So, good work.

You're crazy. I said nothing of the sort. In fact, your accusations are slanderous. In your mind Communism and Socialist are good, no matter how many people are killed or oppressed by government control.

I am however very concerned about Obama funding ISIS with weapons, well also sending American troops to fight against them.

I'm also very concerned that the former Secretary of State Hillary Cllinton, would not only go all in with Obama, but double-down on her wrong ideology by saying she would have given more guns sooner. How dumb can you be?

You're crazy. I said nothing of the sort. In fact, your accusations are slanderous. In your mind Communism and Socialist are good, no matter how many people are killed or oppressed by government control.

I am however very concerned about Obama funding ISIS with weapons, well also sending American troops to fight against them.

I'm also very concerned that the former Secretary of State Hillary Cllinton, would not only go all in with Obama, but double-down on her wrong ideology by saying she would have given more guns sooner. How dumb can you be?

Not true. Communism is utopian, and therefore unrealistic. Some socialism is necessary to deal with the blatant failures and inequalities of the capitalist economic system, as TR pointed out often. Full on socialism would be counter-productive and in all likelihood, fail. Pretty much any and all all-or-nothing ideological systems would fail. As would libertarianism, which is just another utopian pipe dream devoid of reality.

Hillary is to the Right of friggin Nixon.

As far as Obama arming Isis, it's a little more complicated than that. It's actually no different than when Reagan armed the Mujahadin in Afghanistan and they later joined the Taliban and Al Queda using U.S. weapons. Did all of them become fundamentalist radicals? No. Some just went home with their weapons after the Soviets were driven out.

Same as Syria. This was the argument against arming the rebels because you couldn't know whose hands the weapons might go to. Also, it's a bit hypocritical for many on the Right to badger Obama to arm the rebels in Syria, and then, a year later, when some of those weapons end up with ISIS, hysterically accuse him of "Funding the Jihad!" A little less blatant dishonesty might be helpful. The U.S. has also given a ton of weapons to the Saudis, which have somehow ended up in ISIS hands.

How Obama handled Syria one of the biggest blunders we have seen Rho. First him comes out and says Assad has to go. Then he says I don't rule out airstrikes to get it done. Then his own party says WHAT!!!!! war no way so he bows out and says he will put it to a vote in Congress lol. Then he says but if you use chemical weapons it's on like Donkey Kong. Then Obama says you used chemical weapons!

Then Kerry as a joke offhand remark says oh I guess if he gives up all his chemical weapons and we can verify that we won't bomb him.

In steps Putin who says I can make that happen and Obama has to go along with it.

So Obama arms the rebels I guess? is that even official? whatever it may be if those weapons now being used in Iraq it makes it even more of a debacle.

How Obama handled Syria one of the biggest blunders we have seen Rho. First him comes out and says Assad has to go. Then he says I don't rule out airstrikes to get it done. Then his own party says WHAT!!!!! war no way so he bows out and says he will put it to a vote in Congress lol. Then he says but if you use chemical weapons it's on like Donkey Kong. Then Obama says you used chemical weapons!

Then Kerry as a joke offhand remark says oh I guess if he gives up all his chemical weapons and we can verify that we won't bomb him.

In steps Putin who says I can make that happen and Obama has to go along with it.

So Obama arms the rebels I guess? is that even official? whatever it may be if those weapons now being used in Iraq it makes it even more of a debacle.

Obama gave a good apology speech though.

I think Obama would make a good jurist, but he's not a good president. He got played by Putin. He's in over his head on many issues. It's a shame that more people in the opposition can't be a bit more supportive, in the interests of the country, but that kind of stuff doesn't happen anymore.

I think Obama would make a good jurist, but he's not a good president. He got played by Putin. He's in over his head on many issues. It's a shame that more people in the opposition can't be a bit more supportive, in the interests of the country, but that kind of stuff doesn't happen anymore.

I agree 100% I'm afraid of republicans getting control now. You just know they will be all executive orders all over, bypassing congress, and then the liberals would dig in even harder then repubs did. Both sides then point to the other and say you did it the previous administration.

People say throw them out but a bunch of rookies may not be smart either. **** i don't know but the world is getting pretty scary right now. We could use a strong President right now.

Not true. Communism is utopian, and therefore unrealistic. Some socialism is necessary to deal with the blatant failures and inequalities of the capitalist economic system, as TR pointed out often. Full on socialism would be counter-productive and in all likelihood, fail. Pretty much any and all all-or-nothing ideological systems would fail.

As Adam Smith wrote, government exists in order to create conditions in which free market economies can exist, while preventing monopolies. Government isn't, and hasn't been doing it's job for several decades now. The advent of crony capitalism, where the government actually supports corporate interests is not "capitalism" it's Socialism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

As would libertarianism, which is just another utopian pipe dream devoid of reality.

False. If you're calling adhering to the US Constitution "utopian" you don't have a clue. Either that, or you're deliberately lying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Hillary is to the Right of friggin Nixon.

False. She's Fascist and Socialist, just like Hitler and Stalin. Bad combo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

As far as Obama arming Isis, it's a little more complicated than that. It's actually no different than when Reagan armed the Mujahadin in Afghanistan and they later joined the Taliban and Al Queda using U.S. weapons. Did all of them become fundamentalist radicals? No. Some just went home with their weapons after the Soviets were driven out.

Same as Syria. This was the argument against arming the rebels because you couldn't know whose hands the weapons might go to. Also, it's a bit hypocritical for many on the Right to badger Obama to arm the rebels in Syria, and then, a year later, when some of those weapons end up with ISIS, hysterically accuse him of "Funding the Jihad!" A little less blatant dishonesty might be helpful. The U.S. has also given a ton of weapons to the Saudis, which have somehow ended up in ISIS hands.

It's not complicated. Obama is arming the Syrians at the same time he's sending U.S. troops to fight against those weapons. Obviously arming any foreign contingencies is not smart, because those weapons can get into the wrong hands 20 years later (your example). Obviously, Reagan had no way of knowing that the US would be fighting in Afghanistan 20 years later. And Kalishnikov was the Mujahideen weapon of choice. Doubt Al Qaeda is fighting with many M-16's (a full generation later). However, obviously arming foreign contingencies is a bad idea, that's why I was a fan of Ron Paul.

So turn your gaze to Syria, where the entire foreign policy establishment moaned in concert at Obamaís fecklessness last September. We were all told that it was unbelievably naive to think that Assad would ever fully cooperate and relinquish his stockpile of WMDs as a reward for not getting bombed. It was a pipe-dream to think Putin was serious about being constructive as well. Well: a couple weeks back, the last shipment of WMDs was removed from the country, with very limited use in the intervening period, and is now undergoing destruction. I donít know of any similar achievement in non-proliferation since Libyaís renunciation of WMDs under Bush. No, we didnít resolve the sectarian civil war in Syria/Iraq, but we did remove by far the biggest threat to the West and to the world in the middle of it. Why is that not regarded as an epic triumph of American diplomacy, backed by the threat of force?

As Adam Smith wrote, government exists in order to create conditions in which free market economies can exist, while preventing monopolies. Government isn't, and hasn't been doing it's job for several decades now. The advent of crony capitalism, where the government actually supports corporate interests is not "capitalism" it's Socialism.

Government/military linked to corporations is a facet of fascism, not socialism. In socialism, the people would own all the resources. There would be no corporations.

False. If you're calling adhering to the US Constitution "utopian" you don't have a clue. Either that, or you're deliberately lying.

Libertarianism relies on the existence of all sorts of little "invisible hands" ergo, it is utopian and little different from the dream of communism espoused in 1910. It has nothing to do with the Constitution except in Libertarian wet dreams. In fact, libertarians are inherently linked to the commies in a way. Ayn Rand tried to create a political construct that was point by point the opposite of communism, as if that would make any sense as a political philosophy. Of course, since it became a religion instead, no harm, no foul.

False. She's Fascist and Socialist, just like Hitler and Stalin. Bad combo.

Just like Hitler and Stalin? Ridiculous hyperbole which simply proves what an ideologue you are.

It's not complicated. Obama is arming the Syrians at the same time he's sending U.S. troops to fight against those weapons. Obviously arming any foreign contingencies is not smart, because those weapons can get into the wrong hands 20 years later (your example). Obviously, Reagan had no way of knowing that the US would be fighting in Afghanistan 20 years later. And Kalishnikov was the Mujahideen weapon of choice. Doubt Al Qaeda is fighting with many M-16's (a full generation later). However, obviously arming foreign contingencies is a bad idea, that's why I was a fan of Ron Paul.

Hillary Clinton has continuously had the worst plan of all in Syria.

It's the same plan half the "leaders" on the Right wanted.

Reagan gave the Mujahadeen more Stingers than M16s, which were used extensively against the U.S. later. Actually, they say the Taliban still have some of those old Stingers. Imagine. I think the M16s went to the Fascists in Central America after the CIA sold drugs to pay for them. I can't remember if that was before or after Reagan sent Rumsfeld with a gift cake to Saddam Hussein to supply him with chemical weapons. Good old Reagan.

As far as I know, the U.S. has no troops in Syria and has no intention of sending troops to Syria. The "advisors" are supposedly in Baghdad where ISIS would be smart not to try and enter. I disagree with Obama's policy of sending advisers to Iraq. Bush sent in thousands of troops who, together with a completely nonexistent political policy, were unable to keep the old rivalries from tearing Iraq apart. What are a few hundred advisers going to do, other than placate some political noise back home?

This can be seen a couple of ways. One way I've heard it broken down is that Putin worked a deal with Assad who agreed to turn over chemical weapons to the UN for destruction and take some of the international heat off of Syria, while Russia pumps up the Assad military with conventional weapons. In the final analysis, Assad doesn't need the chemical weapons to stay in power. The conventional weapons work well enough.

This can be seen a couple of ways. One way I've heard it broken down is that Putin worked a deal with Assad who agreed to turn over chemical weapons to the UN for destruction and take some of the international heat off of Syria, while Russia pumps up the Assad military with conventional weapons. In the final analysis, Assad doesn't need the chemical weapons to stay in power. The conventional weapons work well enough.

Not to mention that verification seems impossible given the country at war. But a lot of chemical weapons did get destroyed. I guess it's one small victory in a sea of defeat.

This can be seen a couple of ways. One way I've heard it broken down is that Putin worked a deal with Assad who agreed to turn over chemical weapons to the UN for destruction and take some of the international heat off of Syria, while Russia pumps up the Assad military with conventional weapons. In the final analysis, Assad doesn't need the chemical weapons to stay in power. The conventional weapons work well enough.

Call it whatever you will -- but the people of Norway would never trade their system for ours.

They are way ahead of us. They overthrew their bankers long ago. Check it out.

MHG

I'll check it out.

Without a trillion dollar oil fund, they would be in the same sinking boat as the rest of Europe. Not to mention Norway is the size of California, with a population smaller than Houston, and is 90% white ethnic Norwegian.

Oddly enough, the United States has far more resources than Norway and both countries are probably in the same global ballpark as far as ratio of population to land mass goes. Somehow, our wealth of resources does not translate into broadly shared wealth for our people, while Norway's does (except for Alaska, which operates under a similar, socialist system).

Oddly enough, the United States has far more resources than Norway and both countries are probably in the same global ballpark as far as ratio of population to land mass goes. Somehow, our wealth of resources does not translate into broadly shared wealth for our people, while Norway's does (except for Alaska, which operates under a similar, socialist system).

The point is that the profits from the resources in one country are used to create a better quality of life for the people of that country, while in another country, the profits from exploiting the resources go to a tiny percentage of the population. In effect, the resources don't really belong to the people, they belong to those in power.